IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-02.txt

GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> Tue, 05 August 2014 10:28 UTC

Return-Path: <phdgang@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C906A1B2959 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 03:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VQceVVBpgCWW for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 03:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x233.google.com (mail-qg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C1DD1B292B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 03:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id a108so720730qge.24 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 03:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NwuBPNaxY3QndRCwrjNSzY3UfqkWyRb6qJWnmiaNfnk=; b=hN1SuxfIYAHIGYWtcLm2yeZi3MsA610tZ/cwDqCWtRHu6aDWljd4LJuxz9iZGOOcpE jUrd8cW9HPqkO6k6vZODX+ctrtXohjrcysJibHoI7SQkihR2sx/xfoJ5QidZeWhgx9aI ZIke/ylkTvyA21yE96JbZ2Q4UnGVyqzyfh7vRXnRoBBZS5H10wd3rmM5OH0inZZvnaAh pnidTl6jq8A7uo8hZAghuCAiMYAImRjMY+LXG0Zqf7T5C/zc1sPBLA15MN7fwnaC/SD7 t70qO+MuA4AKgSMztTRJQZqmP16DAGM2AhxNMaXwIPOTfGHvVD2PJDaamfkIXMwEL4b/ hkEA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.119.193 with SMTP id a1mr4221010qar.18.1407234508240; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 03:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.46.10 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 03:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1408041827340.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <20140804010755.5662.75071.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAM+vMETtTvs9oeNtg5T7ReyyH1o3g7VXtpG+g-3bKbm6dpAoEQ@mail.gmail.com> <8E890204-B4A8-4EDC-BFF6-FC33A2C30FC6@eircom.net> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1408041827340.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 18:28:28 +0800
Message-ID: <CAM+vMEQDmabh1Smm-qibzNfZtj-RWYxyFO7xMVJUaH3yCccD2Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/5Ihc1oEPO0ZZ4ANH5-hDGKpU8tg
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-02.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 10:28:31 -0000

2014-08-05 0:31 GMT+08:00, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>:

>> Section 7, discussions,  says “dual-stack deployment is recommended in
>> most cases”.
>> Is that still the consensus position?  Going straight to single-stack IPv6
>> is looking very viable now
>> when the UE supports a method of providing translated IPv4 access over the
>> IPv6 PDP/PDN
>> connection.
>
> I don't think there is consensus here. The draft could point out pros and
> cons with each approach.

I'm not a fan of dual-stack deployment. However, I have to point out
if you take look at TS23.060 or TS23.401, you may find the sentence "A
UE which is IPv6 and IPv4 capable shall request for PDN type IPv4v6".
GSMA quotes the similar language from 3GPP for roaming guidance.
Therefore, that is at least a consensus in other SDOs.

The draft intends to state the issues and potential workarounds in
various scenarios. Argument of selection of dual-stack or IPv6-only
may not be the goal of the draft.

BRs

Gang




> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email